Long story short, it claims that food crop estimates have been intentionally overreported to prevent a panic in the short term, but this might have catastrophic consequences as consumption wouldn't have gone down to accomodate for increased prices, and that the food supply will get very problematic before the next crop season, leading to a food price explosion, and a whole slew of nasty domino-effect things which would allegedly make the current economic crisis look like peanuts in comparison.

Yes, subsidies tend to cause more harm than good, when the gov't thinks they know what prices need to be propped up and which don't... BUT, many farm programs, especially in the 70s and 80s were about other things too, such as conservation. My father would get some dollars-per-acre to let side-hill land lie fallow in order to replenish the soil, prevent erosion, etc. Things like headlands, drainage swaths, and terraces were COMPLETELY necessary in the 70s and 80s, especially in places with rich soil but steep hills (like SW Iowa, where I grew up). Not sure it is true, but during a stewardship sermon at my church when I was young, Father Vince said erosion in SW IA was some of the worst in the world. Saving resources was usually more based on tax credits and such than outright subsidies, though (kind of like tax credits going on now for insulation, efficient doors/windows, solar panels, etc.) Beyond that, my dad usually took his fate in his own hands, such as by feeding more corn to hogs in times of low corn prices (didn't help as much when both corn AND hog prices were low, but hey). Like me, my dad just doesn't really like being told what to do. *smile*

And what Ranger says is a sad but true fact. Throwing food at famine areas has often ended up the same way as throwing weapons at supposed "freedom fighters" in other regimes. The resources are often poorly distributed at best, or end up entrenching despots at worst. Sadly, that often also interferes with trying to teach better farming techniques and clean water methodologies to the people themselves. If someone is taking your food, conscripting your children, or randomly killing, it's hard for any amount of food or money to make a difference...

Not to mention over-reproducing, sure you needed 8-10 children when you worked your own farm and had to craft almost everything yourself, but those days are long gone (at least in non 3rd world countries)...

Sure, but even bio-engineered foodstuffs require nutrients. That means organic matter. Unless we gain complete alchemical control over the elements, we aren't going to be able to make nutritious substances out of oil, sand, or seawater. Biological "stuff" requires a fertile bed (whether that be earth, hydroponics, etc.) and the sun (that's where all of our energy comes from, at one point or another).

So something is going to have to be grown somewhere. Now, if the "stuff" for that new style of nutrition grow more efficiently (uses less land, less fertilizer, or harness the sunlight into more nutrition), that would help. But a lot of plants already do pretty damn well at that, and agriculture advances are getting pretty damn good at optimizing that output.

sorry for being disjointed...darn customers are interrupting my typing!

there are also many proteins that just aren't as palatable to humans as meat (excepting those who don't eat it) that could be used in a chemical bath and have less of an environmental impact than two cycles of plant growth then fed to cows to produce meat. soy or nut protein comes to mind.

these, and other nutrients (even ones not found in meat naturally) could all be used in the chemical matrix to grow our meat.

Next imagine the population increase doubles and at the same time the amount of water in the glass doubles.

At the beginning doubles in population were represented by increased drops and were easily contained by the glasses. How ever now we are at the point that the population increases are represented by full glasses. In most of our life times we will see 12 billion people which would easily over flow these imaginary glasses.

Inhabiting other planets would not work it would just give us 12 glasses in which our 6 can double into.

If we were forced to have only one child it would interfere with our rights as human beings, and even if it was regulated with allowances for more children rather then forced we would have a hard time regulating the whole world.

How in the name of all that is holy did global warming get brought into this? Population sustenance has nothing do to with that. If anything, global warming could result in more arable land, even with coastal encroachments.

Where do you get this stuff, Ranger? How do you consistently make 1 + 2 = cake?

the glasses analogy just means that you pick something for our sustainable population on a planetary scale. whatever that unit is, it then goes on to show that for many years we were trickling into that empty container but now with all of the doubling, they are flowing over.

another planet with the same resources would just double the capacity but since our population is doubling, we would fill it in one more generation. at least that is how i understood it.

But one would assume that if we find the tech to get to one new planet, we'll probably be able to find many more. That growth will be exponential as well, since we are in a three-dimensional cosmos. The exponent on volume is generally a 3. *smile*

tis true, but we aren't really working that hard at planetary exploration or population control. if i am not mistaken that was again ak's point, one needs to be done to divert a future crisis.

personally, i think the population issue will take care of itself to a certain extent and balance will be found. we will likely not like the manner in which balance is restored though. i foresee, as population density increases, more epidemics or pandemics with much more dire results than swine flu.

if we choose not to control our population on a planetary scale, our population will likely control us. ; )

Well, a crisis is coming, it's just a matter of whether we tackle it slowly now or tackle it as we get more pressed. It's like the economy -- until something really starts affecting wealth, folks don't move very quickly. Once it hits the pocketbooks, things move fast.

I'm not saying I'd rather wait, but that's usually how things go.

I only mentioned the space stuff because the premise was that even if we found another planet, that would only double our resources. I'm saying that if we find one planet, and can get there, we can find (and get to) a lot more than one, as the geometry of the galaxy/universe would dictate.

We are using more energy to feed and entertain that population with things like food and plasma TVs.

At some point, barring heavy nuclear power use, we will be out of the energy the sun has provided for us in terms of fossil fuels, and the amount of food we can grow is also limited by that tiny earth-print of light the sun adorns us with. Then we will need to cut back on power and food, or there will be a crisis.

The crisis will have many faces, might be large, might be small. But we currently have a finite power supply and an increasing power demand. The math on that isn't hard to do, especially across generations.

Entropy is impossible to beat, and there's no magical end-run around it. That's not junk science or sensationalism. It's thermodynamic fact.

But wealth DOES breed complacency that only a wealth-ruining phenomenon can break the wealthy out of. Why do you think so many socio-economic events have tumultuous names like revolutions, crashes, coups, and genocides? Things come to a head when crises are allowed to get large because vested interests have no reason to veer from the status quo.

Surely you have seen this in history? Or do you think all of the world's past catastrophes have been caused by socialism and lazy people?

@Ranger: Just out of curiosity: What do you think about the evolution theory?

As most of the opinions you expressed throughout the last few days perfectly fit into the stereotype of an "American" many people in Europe have. Climate-sceptic, religious, conservative, market-faithful. Just creationist/anti-darwinist seems to be missing. ;)

Please don't take this as an offence, I ship around political discussions on message boards most of the time, but today this seems hard. Carnage Blender is a fun game, and I want to play it for a loooong time, so maybe all focus an playing again?

Ranger, for ALL non-nuclear, non-tidal, and non-geothermal power sources, the power was either from the sun before (fossil fuels), or comes from the sun now (hydro, solar, wind, bio-fuel, etc.)

It has nothing to do with where we drill, how we drill, how much coal we use, or anything. The sun has been shining on us for a finite time, and will continue to shine on us in finite fashion. Put your mind there, and then continue reading.

Knowing the sun is our only source for external power (again, other than nuclear, tidal, or geothermal), as long as our energy needs continue to increase, we will run out. What will happen when all 10 billion of us have a plasma screen like you have? Run a hungry vacuum cleaner like my Dyson? Drive cars all over?

So, unless you are talking about more nuclear plants, more research into fusion, tapping the earth's core (I'm not sure of the ramifications of that over time...) or tapping tidal forces better (essentially harnessing the power of the moon *smile*), I am not sure what you are talking about. We're a rock in space. All alone. All of our power comes from our central star, our own hot core, or gravitational forces. No magic, no free lunch. No matter how many forest reserves are opened up.

The more I read about "crises", the more I see people wanting global redistribution of wealth. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

Makes me want to stop working and become one of the entitled people and suck off the system.

I really hadn't got that impression from any posts here but yours.

However, yes, if we decide that it is acceptable to subjugate the entire planet to feed our thirst for population expansion then the 'crisis point' is a good bit further off than originally suggested.

If, however, you like trees and lakes and forests then maybe this could be an issue. Incidentally, the greatest cause of deforestation in Africa and (iirc) South America is land clearing for subsistence farming.

And no, it doesn't want to make you stop working, otherwise you would have. Obviously your standard of living is still good enough to justify you wanting to work for it to maintain it. The proof's in the pudding.

Well there is a food shortage, and it will be more severe with time, as we tend to populate at all times. Though the doomsday scenario in this link seem a bit too much. But we eat too much food, we in the western world that is, and specially in the US, not only unhealthy food, but stuff like meat which is a very inefficient way to produce food.
What we would need is a smart way of growing crops without poisoning lakes and oceans with the overuse of fertilizers.
If we only could switch over to eating beatles and other kinds of bugs, thats truly energy-efficient :D

I think it's interesting that people propose having less kids (reducing population) in order to prevent "over-consumption". But we can't forget by any means, that children mean the continuation of any culture. Populations less than the 2.0 birth rate will cease to be a culture in the next 200 years. They will be completely overwhelmed by the cultures that value families with 3.0+ birth rate. Look at India, and other fast growing cultures. India has surpassed the Chinese in overall population and will dominate every other culture over the next 50 years. So the answer isn't to have less children. The answers are to produce to manage the demands of an ever growing population.

seem
&#8194;&#8194;/sim/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [seem] Show IPA
Use seem in a Sentence
See web results for seem
See images of seem
ï¾–verb (used without object)
1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning.
2. to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment, etc.: It seems to me that someone is calling.
3. to appear to exist: There seems no need to go now.
4. to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
5. to give the outward appearance of being or to pretend to be: He only seems friendly because he wants you to like him.

Not to mention you by your own account you "don't mind". Not minding something and WANTING something are completely different things.

So I regurgitate: The ONLY people who SEEM to WANT the global redistribution of wealth, are those who benefit from it.

Better?

How about:

Lazy people need to get off their ass and do something about it, rather than look for a handout and claim they are owed something.

I'm not "well off" but I was raised that if you want something in this world, you take it. Want to have money, power, girls, whatever. Strive for it. EARN it.

This new global mentality of "PLEASE SIR, TAKE CARE OF ME" is garbage.

Furthermore I don't care about YOUR situation, I was being broad for a reason. So please stop dissecting my posts without adding any value to the conversation.

I didn't say; "SUT IS A POOR WELFARE HOG THAT WANTS HANDOUTS"

At all.

If I've offended you by calling the lazy ... lazy... then well... I don't know what to tell you other than get over it.

I can't speak for "global" (well, I could, but I won't), but I heard from Denmark today that, since the more you earn the more you are taxed, people choose their livelihoods as a matter of avocation over material braggartism.

It also seems they are some of the best educated, by volume, and "happiest" by the scales used to measure such things across nations. They generally agree that they have a fairly strict sense of the "end of the work day" (which seems to be between 4 and 5 p.m.) and place great importance on having regular meals together as families.

They are extraordinarily healthy compared to Americans, as well. This could be attributed to the fact that when accused of being "socialist", they say "We tend to view it as being responsible. Why would a society leave the sick, poor and elderly to miserable circumstances? It's not something we would choose to do."

If you call a 40-60% tax rate "redistribution of wealth", it seems to work pretty good for the beautiful people.

This could be attributed to the fact that when accused of being "socialist", they say "We tend to view it as being responsible. Why would a society leave the sick, poor and elderly to miserable circumstances? It's not something we would choose to do."

Are you in the sick, poor, or elderly category Jir?

I'm pretty sure Bast didn't subscribe to giving money to random people who are doing ok without it...

I'm not giving it away, I'm investing it. Investing in you personally, that is "in an individual" or "as a person with some tendencies toward the shockingly ignorant", would not likely reap massive dividends.

I have no problem whatsoever with upping my contribution to better the society of which I am a member. Better health? Darn tootin'. Better safety? You betcha. Better elder care? Yep. More literacy? You go! Fewer bumcicles? Sure, why not? A landscape that tends toward the aesthetically pleasing? That too!

And that's not even as someone doing what I love and living as a contributing member of a society that I believe merits both forms of investment.

"This new global mentality of "PLEASE SIR, TAKE CARE OF ME" is garbage."

Must be a very very new mentality, and short lived, gj on catching that.

Gotta say, thanks to Sutek and Bast for being counterweight to the insane comments by others. This fanatic fear of compassion is scary and provoking to say the least.
There should be a way to exclude people who don't want to contribute to society, but unfortunately there is no place to put em.

Jir, I already pay around 30% in income tax. Then there's sales tax, property tax (around 4 grand per annum for me), etc, etc. Depending on how I choose to rationalize it, I already pay well over 40% in taxes.

And you think 40% is some sort of "outrage point"? You think folks on welfare are the only ones

And yes, I appreciate your definition of "seems". I appreciate you put "only" with "seems" so that in the event someone called you on your asinine redux that you had an out you could use. Come on, you're better than that, I know you are. WAY better than that. You don't need hyperbole to make your points.

Bast, I want nothing to do with it. Pretty soon, Ranger is going to say the exbow is too powerful because of political correctness and our welfare state.

I love to contribute to society. I give frequent donations to the local Animal Shelter, my Temple and a few other organizations. My wife donates her time as a nurse to the local health clinic.

I also play a lot of taxes. Just for working extremely hard to be successful and being very good at what I do.

I would like to not play a lot more so the government can decide who gets what help. And messing things up along the way.

Call me not compassionate if you really believe that. I really do not care. I feel quite comfortable with my decisions. I fell fine with the amount I personally contribute to society. Quite a lot and much more than most.

But to call me insane for not believing what you do is just... insane.

Ranger, you are right -- it is not necessarily a good comparison, using Denmark.

But what does homogeneity have to do with it?

I thought the mix was the strength of the USA? That the confederacy portion of our governance (each state having things they control) was unique -- a federalist republic confederate democracy. Damn fine!

So maybe Denmark is a bad comparison on paper. But relate that paper to why or why not socialist policies can't work here? Once again, you're making 1 + 2 = cake. Strong points, but what do they have to do with each other?

I understand the problem with political correctness, for anyone who doesn't understand what either of those two words mean individually and makes the combination of them some sort of "Ha HA!" epithet. Think of it like "You .. you ... _dentist_!" and you'll get it.

I have no problem whatsoever with upping my contribution to better the society of which I am a member. Better health? Darn tootin'. Better safety? You betcha. Better elder care? Yep. More literacy? You go! Fewer bumcicles? Sure, why not? A landscape that tends toward the aesthetically pleasing? That too!

Who says your view of society right? Why do I have to let the government control 16% of society via a bill that was rushed through congress on pure partisan lines? Why do I have to have a park in the middle of downtown? Who says I have wear a helmet while riding my mototcycle if I really do not want to? Who says throwing tons of money into an archaic school system is the answer?

Ok,, so am I supposed to believe that all poor or homeless people are just lazy, good for nothing, wastes of time? In this day and age, with the economy tanking and unemployment rates doubling. what gets me is people like some of you actually believe that crap.

Give someone alittle more money then the next guy and all of a sudden everyone living in poverty is worthless. Funny thing is, if things do get worse those poor people are in a better position then you guys with tons of cash. See they have something you never will. It's called a will to survive. I could go on forever about how the poorman bust's his/her butt so some jerk can get a 3 million dollar bonus by playing around with my money, and when they dont get that bonus they say "OMG how am I gonna feed my family lobster and caviar."(dont care if that's spelled right)

This system has been set up so the poor can be exploited by the rich. if you don't see that then, your either rich or ignorant.

Oh dear. Now we'll have to sit through another of those "I did it all myself with nothing but sheer grit and determination and the blessings of God because I had no social skills and no friends and no parents and no government and no technologically/socially advanced country and no penis and no whiteness to help me" posts that are so taxing on my dental work.

Lazy is for the most part an incorrect word to describe most of the people in poverty. While there is a very small percentage of those who take advantage of the system, that percentage is ultimately an outlier from a statistical standpoint of the problem of poverty in economics.
Essentially it comes down to education. Unemployment among the impoverished is largely due to low average human capital. Human capital is an economic term used to describe what a person has to offer: their value to the community. For the most part, these people have a high school education or less, cannot afford college and are forced to work minimum wage jobs (usually at least one). This standard of education makes it very hard to get hired at a job which pays over a certain payroll (trust me the statistics are out there, I am about to go to sleep so I dont care to look). Since it is very costly to improve education and therefore human capital, and those who are impoverished have a hard time making money....I hope you can see something of a cycle forming here.

Generally poverty increases in urban areas where it is harder to overcome certain societal problems and achieve a great education. But those are a story for another time.

Especially with the economy tanking, where people who DO have college or higher educations are getting sacked, what choices do you see open for those with less?

Well the essential gist of it would be something similar to a trickle down effect among education tiers:

Guy A with a Masters gets sacked at his job and cant find another one at or around the same level of pay/education. Guy A needs to feed 2.5 kids. Guy A applies for job which pays significantly less and requires a lower degree of education. Guy A gets job over Guy B because Guy B just has a high school education and less job experience. Guy B would have gotten the job if Guy A was employed. Guy B is now unemployed.

With many degrees of freedom of course and literary license (Guy A was devastated from his job loss ((which is one of the most traumatic things which can happen to a person who loses a job in a career, from what I;m told)) sits depressed at home for 1 month) etc.

I realize I shouldn't have. I am just getting sick of people who talk about the poor/homeless or underprivilaged when they themselves have no clue. Thanks to this volitial economy though, some of those ignorant souls are just 1 lay-off away from years of unemployment(with or without benefits).

I have a few friends who started to think there carp didn't stink until the lay-off's started. One has been laid off for a year and a half(and he does 3 job search website's + job service + walk-in's)
has plenty of varied exp in the construction field, went to culinary school, etc....

The point is.. if theres no jobs, what is a guy/gal supposed to do. And if they lose everything in the meantime, does that mean he's a worthless piece of carp.. No, it just mean's that there are not enough jobs to go around.

I myself have had my hours reduced 40% and really dont make much. But a job is a job for now. I feel lucky to still have my carpy news job.

Ranger, you didn't answer my question about why America's heterogenous nature is a detriment as opposed to an asset. It seemed to be a big point for you, can you elaborate so I can better understand where you are coming from?

The comparison should be perfectly acceptable unless you think that the US isn't capable of achieving similar results because of some deficiency. Maybe you think that the system isn't scalable to the numbers of folks in the US, but you did make a point of mentioning the racial makeup of the other country...

I thought the mix was the strength of the USA? That the confederacy portion of our governance (each state having things they control) was unique -- a federalist republic confederate democracy. Damn fine!

Yes, a unique strength of our country. Something that leads us to want to succeed and strive to be the best.

Unfortunately the small size and homogeneous of Denmark make it very hard, if not impossible, for them to have that: -- a federalist republic confederate democracy.

Which is why what works in Denmark may not be an adequate comparison to what may work in the US.

Find another country that is more like America for an adequate comparison. Do not use Denmark as an example of what can work in America.

I think I can attack that point from my own perspective rather than Ranger's.

To the number's question: There is a reason the ideal democracy basically consists of a society of around less than 1000 people--it works the same in economics: the lower the numbers of population, generally there is greater equality in distribution of wealth and happiness (Ideally speaking). In real society, unfortunately there are many example societies with relatively low populations which run under what can be considered more or less a dictatorship, or warlord-run martial law.

Denmark is an example where the society runs better with lower numbers (the nation is ((a blunt and poor term, but it is the best I can think of at this our)) more advanced than many of the nations which are warlord-run or dictatorships). As population increases you have increasing chaos.

As to the racial thing: Ideally, society would have no racism. As the number of races increases inside a population, generally so does racism of one group towards others. Its sad but its true. If a society was made up of one race (I dont even like to use the word race, but that is a different argument for another time) then there would exist no racism, because there would be nobody to be racist towards.

In a society such as Denmark;'s which is quite homogeneous, you might get one of two extremes: 1. Absolutely no, or an infinitesimal amount of racism OR 2. A high degree of racism towards the super small percentage of people that are not danish (danish--in this example).

Racism also has more than a few economic impacts. As for one I believe Ranger mentioned (correct me if i'm wrong) which happens to be an educational problem is the AA. Many universities, med programs etc. (weather they want to admit it or not) have some type of quota to show diversity. It isnt a bad thing so to speak, but it does have the unintended side effect of potentially kicking worthy candidates for acceptance which are not of minority for no other reason than their race. I believe there was a study done on Ivy League schools which demonstrated that it was slightly easier to get into those schools (although still quite tough all things considered) if you were not white.

This is from a purely scholastic perspective, I am by no means a racist if for some crazy reason or misinterpretation somebody accuses me of being one.

Still not sure why Denmark is not a valid comparison, and not sure why folks are focusing on democracy -- I was talking about socialism, the economic construct, not the method of governing (which is democratic in Denmark, as it is here).

Why can't socialism scale to larger, diverse numbers? I'm really asking here. The UK is a larger nation, and socialism works there (we have even have a few UKers weigh in on things like health care). Canada has some socialist aspect folks from Canada care to weigh in?

Also, the European Union is very diverse and, as a whole, has a higher population covered than that of the USA (nearly half a billion people). Many of the EU nations are socialist democracies, or have socialist aspects, and things seem to be progressing there.

So, without simply stating it as a truism, can someone tell me why larger, diverse populations cannot work with socialist policies in place?

American became such a great country based upon capitalism. Do your best, succeed and reap the rewards.

Most medical breakthroughs including technology and drugs are a result of the US capitalistic society. Do you really think drug companies would research new drugs unless they are able to profit from them.

A socialistic society can succeed when everyone is on the same page. When everyone is altruistic. But with larger numbers, one gives less and less care to those further distanced from themselves.

No, I do not see socialism working on such a large diverse scale as the US. At least keeping the US as the great country it currently is.

we are a bit more global than in Machiavelli's days though and some also have the strong opinion that we are becoming more homogeneous due to it.

i never foresaw 20 years ago that i would be playing a computer game with players from all over the world and in my free time discussing such global events. if i had i probably wouldn't have dreamed that i would find myself, being a redneck from a small town in texas, having more in common with people across the globe rather than people across my own country, state or even county.

i care little for the denmark argument or what it represents but since ranger made his statement i was wondering how he would support it. it seems that it all boils down to an opinion on the altruistic nature of diverse cultural groups unless he can show some data supporting that as fact? i tend to, even here on cb, see what people have in common rather than what differentiates us and thus feel that humans, given effort can share any goal that is worthy.

The UK is not socialist in that we the people do certainly not own the means of production etc but yea we have certain social welfare institutions which benefit a large amount of the population. They doubtless have deficiencies, sometimes serious, maybe systemic but it seems like a relatively humane allocation of resources which stumbles along kind of working out :)

Ranger, how much government welfare does the medical industry receive in the US?

Ranger, I'm not asking about "how the heck can this work..." It works. Socialist countries, with progressive taxes and luxury taxes as high as 75% for some people have "happy" populations and successful economies. I'm not sure how to define "happy", but surveys and such try it. Countries with very high taxes, such as Denmark, Germany, and Sweden do very well on such surveys. I don't know why, but results are results. Stating, "How can that be?" or "How can that work?" doesn't negate the fact that it does, in fact, work in other places.

That's why I want to get down to, "What is different about the USA such that you think systems used in the above countries would not work?" And, "Why would anyone have incentive if they were taxed?" is not an answer -- because folks in these other countries are taxed, and they are still working! In fact, they are happy. Why?

By the way, one of the countries listed above, Germany, is capitalist and democratic. They have more social programs, but they are still considered capitalist. Also, they are fairly large, have diverse geography, a fairly diverse population (not as diverse as the US, but diverse), and their socialist programs and relatively high taxes (their progressive scale ranges up to around 45% where in the USA it tops out at 35%) seem to be doing OK. They are a very big player in the EU, and are even pretty big worldwide.

How is this possible? Can we concentrate on trying to figure out how other places make this work instead of simply saying, "It can't work here, and why would anyone work with such high taxes..." Because maybe it CAN work here, and in other places people DO continue to work even when taxes exceed 40%.

"but it seems like a relatively humane allocation of resources which stumbles along kind of working out :) "

For the most part it does more than just stumble along to be fair! My son is fit and well because of it, and my mum in her last weeks alive was so well looked after. It's not for nothing either, I pay a sizeable amount of my salary every month towards it. The fact that I might not need it very often is more luck than judgement and I don't actually care who else might be benefiting from it to be honest. Providing that when I or my loved ones need care we get it.

Which makes me a sort of selfish socialist. Which is surely the only kind of socialism you can get in a capitalistic society. And after all, that kind of society didn't start with the US. I think you can safely say we have been living like that on this side of the water for a very very long time. If it can work here it can work for you on that side too.

As for drug companies and profits...sure, I want people to be fairly compensated for their work and accomplishments.

However, if you think drug companies aren't simply following the money, I'm not sure you're paying attention. Drugs like Cialis and Viagra are billion-dollar drugs. Are they really progressing human-kind? Diabetes treatment has become such a huge industry that a friend of mine who's wife has diabetes believes it will never be cured -- there's too much money to be made in treating the symptoms, and the patients don't die. This means the diseased population is a money tree.

Meanwhile, we have mega-corporations such as Disney actively fighting to change laws so they can hold on to copyrights longer and longer. Fifty years, then seventy, then one hundred twenty years! Can't let Micky Mouse slip into the public domain, even though Disney hasn't done squat with poor Mickey other than slap him on everything from watches to toilet paper and charge outrageous prices for it. Sure, I'd love everyone to see through such ploys, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Henry van Statten, a fictional entrepreneur a few years back on "Doctor Who" put it best. Upon explaining all of the great things he had found by scavenging alien artifacts fallen to earth, he mentions finding the cure for the common cold:

"... Kept it strictly within the laboratory, of course. No need to get people excited. Why sell one cure when I can sell a thousand palliatives?"

If you were a true capitalist, answering only to the making of money, how could you do anything else? By definition, cures are the WORST thing you can sell, because then you've lost your repeat business!

OK, but does a person in Aalborg care about a person in Copenhagen (Denmark)?

We keep talking about "How can this work?" when it DOES work in other places. Are you saying the USA reaches some critical size, whereas I care about the people within a 100 mile radius but suddenly don't give a rat's behind about people 500 miles away? That makes no sense. We see what is in front of us (like family) and for what we don't see it doesn't maker if it is 100 miles away or 1000.

So what exactly is the point of referring to people in Las Vegas? I care as much about people in Las Vegas as I do about people in Milwaukee (I live in Madison).

Republics work better with smaller communities, it's common sense. Even those who argued for a large scale republic, i.e. Madison with the US, conceded this point to an extent. However Ranger, we as well as Denmark, already have a Republic, in the old sense, and it is less related to Socialism than I think you realize. If you want me to explain this further, I will when I'm at home, not on the phone.

How can there be considered no incentive for hard work?
Bare minimum and you get 18k (whoopee!)
Work harder you get 75k (nice)
Really do it up and make 300k (score!)

Is someone here really suggesting that people would rather settle for option B and make 225k less per year just because they don't want to pay *more* in taxes?

Heck, even if you doubled the two higher tax rates you are still making3 twice as much as person C than you would as person b (and that's at an 80% tax rate).

Honestly, I just don't buy the argument that this kills one's motivation to work harder and earn more money....

But you're right about the appeal of quitting work and having ~everything~ taken care of for you. The people I see on welfare seem uniformly ecstatic with their lot in life... I am often jealous of their crappy apartments a second hand clothes.

I don't know what you are talking about Ranger, as I was never a part of this "care about" discussion. You're the one saying it "just can't work here," based, as far as I can tell, on our size and diversity. Germany is also very large and diverse, and they have nationalized health care, for example. I don't know how good it is, but I haven't read any horror stories about the care there.

So remind me again what data I need to provide, and what I am needing to prove? YOU are the one saying it just can't work here, so the onus of proving that is on you, not me. It DOES work elsewhere, so that tells me that maybe it CAN work here (or is at least worth discussing using more than hand-waving).

I'll ask again: What, specifically, is it about the United States that makes you absolutely certain that socialist policies cannot work here when other large, capitalist countries use such policies effectively and happily? And when I say "specifically", I mean the answer: "Diversity and size make it impossible, and even a casual observer can see that." is not an answer any more than saying "Because chewing gum exists and water flows downhill." An observation is NOT an explanation. You are a smart guy -- give an explanation, and elaborate upon it so we can seek solutions.

... so I'm too lazy to research, original numbers were good guesses though...
*Note: I deliberately set the highest tax rate to 40% owing to an earlier comment of something like "if I paid 40% in taxes I'd quit".

Yeah, Loch, I think the US income tax tops out around 35%, though we all know taxes are a very flexible thing when you think about exemptions, tax credits, itemized deductions, etc. I will say that property tax on a home is definitely offset to some degree by the fact that mortgage interest and property taxes are tax deductible...

Getting to the point where one makes 500k a year takes quite a lot of sacrifice, effort, and dedication. ALong with a lot of risk taking.

One does not wake up with a 500k a year job.

Double taxes to 70% or more as they were in the pre-Reagan years and people will think long and hard if they want to take those risks for little extra reward.

But most of the people I see now who are not successful have made excuses about why they are not.

At some point, the incentive to succeed is lost, and the incentive to take risks is lost.

We have become the "I cannot do it all myself because I have no social skills and no friends and no parents and no government to help me" country.

Have we gotten away from the roots of what made America great? The "you can succeed if you try hard enough" place that everyone dreams of coming to.

I am sick of the "you have to give back since you are successful" mentality of people. I give back, more than most in America. I also came from a middle class family with no silver spoon in my mouth. But I went to college. Racked up over 100k in debt. Went many a sleepless day to get more training. Moved many times to find the right job. Work so many weekends my kids barely see me sometimes.

But I worked for it. Problem is not everyone wants to do the same. I see a nice cross section of people at my job. We turn away NOBODY who needs medical care. It is against the law in the ER you realize.

And right now, while the top federal income tax level is 35-6%, there are plenty of other taxes one pays. Sales tax, personal property tax, property tax, state income tax etc.. Overall I am paying well over 60% of my total income in taxes.

Now with the health care fiasco being jammed down our throat, there will be more taxes to pay. Just so the government can control more of our society/economy to run as well as they do the post office.

I give to my temple. Quite a lot of my paycheck. However, all the good they do is being made less and less due to paople giving less and less. WHy? Due to the fear of Obama and the government raising taxes for their agenda.

So please spare me the "Ranger is a selfish person for being successfull and working hard to get there" crap.

So please spare me the "Ranger is a selfish person for being successfull and working hard to get there" crap.

Perhaps you'd rather the "Ranger needs to learn to read" crap?

I never, ever, made any disparaging remarks about you. I did not call you selfish or anything even close in nature.

Your long response which was, I believe, directed to me did not actually really answer the question I asked.
To wit: Would you honestly consider quitting your work and relying on government handouts because of the fact that you pay 60% of your income in taxes? To a lesser extent would you consider dropping down to a 20k a year job for the same reason?

To wit: Would you honestly consider quitting your work and relying on government handouts because of the fact that you pay 60% of your income in taxes? To a lesser extent would you consider dropping down to a 20k a year job for the same reason?

If taxes were back at the pre-Reagan levels, 70+%, with all the problems of practicing including malpractice worries, yes, I would certainly consider leaving medicine.

But would I have a 20k a year job? Likely not as I have quite a lot of education and a drive to succeed and not fail.

I already know of 5 collegues that are leaving medicine due to these and other factors.

One of the reasons that high taxes works in smaller countries such as Denmark is that for the most part, people can see what their money is going towards. In other words, the money from taxes etc that goes to the government has a more readily available effect for the general populace.

In larger countries such as the United States which is roughly 55X larger than Denmark on a population basis, money given in taxes is much harder to find in terms of its overall effect on the community.

Take Denmark, which has less than the population of NYC (That's New York City for all you foreigners ;) ). It is MUCH easier to govern and tax 5M people than it is 300M+. Unfortunately, in the United States, the population has more or less outgrown the system.

Unfortunately the only solution to that problem of the population outgrowing the system is a change in system. But that is wayyyyyyyyyyyy (and I add so many y's for literary effect) unrealistic especially in such a polar political climate as is in the US. Even a widespread overhaul of the current government would cost money, which inevitably would have to come from the people. Politically in the US, it is much easier to jump onto bandwagons than it is to actually correctly analyze costs and benefits for something like that. Unfortunately the fact that upwards of 70% of tax dollars are misused doesnt help. (One figure that I remember explicitly is 85% but I do not remember a source so I digress)

I'm glad this is not in the debate forum.. It means I can use all kinds of nasty logic fallacies to prove my points and make other people appear to be arguing for something illogical.

Have we gotten away from the roots of what made America great? The "you can succeed if you try hard enough" place that everyone dreams of coming to.

Do you mean that the reason my friends and I aren't making 500k a year is because we haven't tried hard enough or sacrificed enough? What is even more awesome is that if you take that argument to it's logical end-point, everyone in the entire United States can try harder and make 500k a year! Hooray! It's not like there are limits on resources or opportunities to succeed in this country, not at all! I'm positive that is the truth.

/s

I only wish I lived in the same country that Ranger does, because I know plenty of people who have worked very hard, and sacrificed a lot, and do not make anywhere near 500k. Simply put, the lack of opportunities to succeed does not stem from peoples inability to work hard and sacrifice, no, it is based on the fact that we all live in the real world which does not provide us with unlimited anything, we have scarcity of resources and therefore, scarcity of opportunity.

I will be the first to say it, some people are lucky that their hard work pays off in spades, and some are not so lucky.

So, tomorrow, if every adult in the country opened a business (I don't care what kind), and kept working at it through every failure, everyone could make $500,000 a year?

That's what I am reading -- is that correct?

See, I think you're forgetting that for every "have", there HAS to be a "have not", or at least a "have less" when it comes to capitalism. Capitalism is about WINNING. And if some people are winning, then others have to be losing, or at least winning less.

So Verifex's point stands. Wealth is limited. By resources, time, perceived value, etc. A similar example would be investing in index funds. Index funds, for those who may not know, are cheap-fee investment funds (cheap because no one has to work at doing a lot of moving of stocks -- they simply match indexes such as Standard & Poor's, etc.) that mimic popular indexes. Some are very specific (like following just the main stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average), while others invest in 1000s of stocks (whatever index that is). Indexing can be smart, over time, because when all is said and done, very few people have ever beaten the average market growth (or decline) over a long time horizon (such as 30 years). So, if one indexes, one is basically reaping the benefits of all those cowboys out there who waste trading fees and taxes as they move stuff around pursuing the myth of "beating the market".

But, if EVERYONE indexed, indexing would cease to be more efficient, and would lead to stagnation, because capital investments would be more of a spectator sport than a living, breathing, speculative effort. The market NEEDS losers, because those losers are offset by the winners -- survival of the fittest. Index funds are stable, but if everyone headed for that shelter, the stability would have no chaos to feed from.

Actually, investing is one area where you don't need a loser. Why would someone buy something that you are selling if you think you are selling it because it's a losing investment and time to get out? Easy -- it's only time to get out for your specific investing strategy. Everyone is applying different investing strategies, and someone will buy your "bad" investment because that fits in with that person's particular strategy.

The same goes for Verifex's example. Yes, everyone in America *can* go and do as he sarcastically suggested. That doesn't mean that everyone *will*. To be more clear, that doesn't mean that everyone will go and do the exact same thing. We all have different goals, different strategies in play. The inner beauty of capitalism is that you can tailor your own strategies to yourself, and not be slaved to some external body dictating what you must do. Everyone can "win", as it were, because everyone needs something different to achieve the said "win".

There have been many, many books written about why capitalism is bad (the essential bit of capitalism being survival of the fittest). And there are many others bashing the economic system itself.

The problem is that people do not all have an equal playing field. I'm sure that you have heard many stories about kids living in the 'ghetto' who can only get out with special talents.

Yes at some point there is some responsibility on the people to better their living conditions, however in a capitalist society it is very hard to go from rags to riches, to borrow the term. Mostly on an individual-case basis it involves quite a bit of luck. Being in the right place at the right time, that sort of thing.

"Selling Short" is selling stocks you don't currently own for the current price and buying them later that day for a lower price. No transactions are made in any given day until the close of sales for the day. So if you think a specific item is going to drop today, you can make promises to sell say 1000 of em to some people. Then later, if you're correct and it drops, you buy 1000 at some lower price. You have now made the difference.

If you're just straight up selling something because it's dropping and you don't want it anymore because it just keeps losing money, you might actually be selling it to one of these people that are selling short.

Ranger, I am not against survival of the fittest, but that depends on how far you are willing to go with that.

Are you honestly saying all welfare programs should be stopped, and if someone can not find gainful employment to afford housing, clothing, and food, they simply die off?

Believe it or not, that would be a stance I could respect from a consistency and logic standpoint. However, from a human standpoint I am not sure that's how things can work.

If you AREN'T willing to let the system go all the way (people dying), but vehemently dislike the current welfare system (I think your view on that is pretty clear), what solution do you have in mind? What is in between true survival of the fittest and the welfare state?

I fear that Ranger is endorsing a Mad Max world, where you can take whatever you can grab, and only when you feel like soothing your soul do you toss the less fortunate a bone. I just wonder if Ranger is trolling us though. I mean seriously, you can't possibly believe that everyone is as generous as you are Ranger.

Do you really think that if everyone on CB was as successful as you they would all give to charity as much as you?

I will be the first to admit that I don't believe that I will ever give to charity no matter how well I do. If I do it will most likely be for some other reason than the goodness of my heart, in other words it would benefit me in the end.

Not to tread on toes, but the trickle down form of economics is a large part of the reason that the nation's economy is as bad as it is right now. Unfortunately there are many cases where giving money to the top actually hurts the bottom. See ENRON, as one example off the top of my head.

Actually one of the chief reasons we are in this bad economy is the sense of entitlement people have.

People in the US were lead to believe owning a house is a right and not a privilege. Banks were forced to give loans to people who obviously could not qualify. And then the market just disintegrated.

In addition the lack of oversight on Wall Street, but both parties in Congress contributed to this state we are currently in.

I am in no way endorsing a "Mad Max" type of world. Now who is putting words in who's mouth? I am typing that is it ok to be successful and enjoy the fruits of one's labor. Not to be taxed to oblivion to stop all incentives to succeed. Let the free market dictate prices and services. And stop all the handouts from the government.

So, let me get this straight, you want to get rid of all government programs that involve giving services to the citizens. Then you think getting rid of regulation and taxation (or very minimal taxation) on businesses will lead us to a more prosperous nation? Your ideas have all kinds of simple logistical problems with them and I don't even know where to start. Which is why I think you're trolling us. ;)

In a short term sense, yes the housing and Wall Street are a large percentage of the direct causes of the economy tanking. However things such as 'Reaganomics' or trickle-down economics are, to make a metaphor, a corrosive acid which will eventually destroy the heart of the American economy. Yes, it is that bad. Things like ENRON only tend to snowball into larger and larger "screwovers" of Americans. It is a prime example, too, of how 'survival of the fittest' is a very poor way to run a nation. In the example of ENRON, the company's CEO's were clearly the fittest (until they got caught of course). This type of conduct is unacceptable, but is essentially a product of a backwards type of economy.

I believe in a previous post I mentioned the fact that a huge percentage of our tax dollars are not allocated correctly, or misused. This can be traced back to Reaganomics where taxes are consolidated centrally (I believe we would have a much more fluid system if taxes were to be consolidated communally, but that is something which is impossible in this day and age) and then chunks of it thrown at different organizations, different acronyms, and are subsequently misused. Despite the theory looking really nice, it is in fact a terrible form of economic management.

Let the free market dictate prices and services. And stop all the handouts from the government.

You don't frequently quantify what you mean when you say broad things like this. Why don't you narrow it down to what you mean when you say handouts? All I know is that you are always jumping on the anti-government train and riding it all the way to somewhere, I'm just not sure where.

I will be the first to admit that I don't believe that I will ever give to charity no matter how well I do.

The biggest philanthropists in the world are also the wealthiest people in general. And I mean %-wise, not in total donation count (because obviously a billionaire giving 1% is still way more than a minimum wage person given 10%.) Basically, people with lots of money generally understand finances fairly well, and they understand why giving away 10% of their wealth is a very good economic decision (look at Carnegie for a good dissertation on wealth redistribution.)

I will be the first to admit that I don't believe that I will ever give to charity no matter how well I do. If I do it will most likely be for some other reason than the goodness of my heart, in other words it would benefit me in the end.

That is very sad for society as a whole. Even when I had no money, going to school on loans, I still found the time to volunteer.

I truly hope if you become successful, you have a change of heart and realize how lucky and fortunate you are.

Ranger, who decides that level where "survival of the fittest" stops, and human compassion kicks in?

You? Me?

You know me. It's all about consistency. I get the total "survival of the fittest". It's consistent. I don't prescribe to it, myself. But I get it.

And I get the complete wide-open, "let's figure this out as we go along" type of thing.

You appear to want something in between. And that's fine. But if that's what you want, you need to reveal an entire system on how that is going to work. You can't actually just sit back and say, "damn lazy people" unless you are prepared to damn all lazy and incapable people at once.

I happen to think it's excessive that the government says I can't sell beef that doesn't meet USDA standards. It's not the _best_, but it's only going to kill a negligible number of people. I should be free to make a buck like everybody else.

I think it's excessive governmental interference that there are laws against cannibalizing relatively fresh corpses for perfectly usable body parts. The market for it is million$ per year. I'll even go so far as to concede that I will only use the "healthy" people, not the ones that had Hep C and AIDS and cancer when they kicked off. But having to get consent? Pft. That's just maudlin hypersensitivity and a waste of both resources and profit!

I think it's excessive governmental interference that I can't marry Rachel Maddow, operate a motorcycle topless while swilling cheap hooch with one hand and texting with the other.

I also think it's excessive governmental interference that we're not allowed to permanently quiet those who offer only simplistic, moronically brutish, self-aggrandizing, and absurdly self-righteous assertions as answers to complex problems. A world where people recognize both nuance and subtlety, understanding both compromise and politics, would be much less likely to cause me (and many several others) to stroke out, thereby reducing healthcare costs for everyone.

Ranger, the main point I think you are missing is that you have made it ABUNDANTLY clear what YOU consider "excessive". You want to be judge, jury, and executioner on this. You want all the power without any of the tolerance or insight.

I've seen you rant and rave about how hard you have worked to be where you are, to the entire dismissal of anyone else. It doesn't matter how hard anyone else has worked, because they can NEVER have worked as hard as you have. That would shatter everything you hold to be true, were it the case. Furthermore, you act like a friend to people (including me), but when push comes to shove, you think you have suffered and worked harder than anyone else (that's why I have had to be honest in CMs and tell you I simply cannot trust you). You haven't worked harder than anyone else, and that's not for you to judge in the first place.

Judgment is not obvious. That's why it has it's own word. If everything were black and white, we'd have only two words: "black" and "white". That is not the case. And even when I try to genuinely work with you to define what's in between, I am merely told what is obvious and am disparaged because I can't see it like you do.

I've tried to work with you. I've tried to work with you so hard it shuts threads down and I look like the bad guy. And I am 100% percent fine with that. At least I tried.

WOW! What a discussion. Great points made on both sides, and some top-rate mudslinging to boot.
My opinion? We're not going to run out of food. Necessity breeds invention, especially on an empty stomach.

You've got to hand it to Ranger though, I mean he gets to have his cake and eat it too. He can have a very opinionated (and negative) view of government influence and taxation, without actually putting his own ideas on how government should be run out there.

It's easy, because if you don't put yourself out there opinion-wise, you won't be susceptible to actually being wrong about something. For instance..

I think we rely too heavily on corn in this country for much of our food, and that is largely the result of many companies selling sweet sugary foods and needing high-fructose corn syrup. For whatever reason, big agribusinesses have permeated almost every aspect of our food chain in this country, and so we have tons of crappy food available to us. The FDA should be doing a better job of putting pressure on big agribusinesses to produce healthier food in mass quantities for lower cost. As agribusiness goes, healthy food is a premium that people will pay for, and as such costs much more then other much unhealthier foods.

My favourite part of discussions like these are always the bits where people talk about the sort of government they want, while at the same time saying but actually I don't want to pay for it with my hard earned money. They might use it to help other people. And it won't be the people I want them to help.

I think people should be able to opt out of paying taxes, but they should opt out of every area of life where government is involved. Including talking about it.

You've got to hand it to Ranger though, I mean he gets to have his cake and eat it too. He can have a very opinionated (and negative) view of government influence and taxation, without actually putting his own ideas on how government should be run out there.

What of my opinions have I not made clear?

I want the government to take a hands off approach to the free market society we currently are attempting to have.

Of course, certain regulations are needed to prevent such problems as Fannie and Freddie Mac, Enron, and the runaway problems on Wall Street.

But in the general way people want to and need to run their businesses, a hands off approach is what I advocate.

In addition to less taxes to stimulate the economy and not make small businesses afraid to hire people, and when they do be subject to paying an abundance of taxes.

If you want to get into all my thoughts on government, I would feel free to discuss those in another thread.

But to the first post of this thread, it is scare tactics like the article quoted, along with other scare tactics like global warming that do nothing but cause such hysteria and an attempt to redistribute wealth.

I am stating what will happen if we pass this health care fiasco. Being in the field I know what will happen. And I try to convince people they are on the wrong path with this current bill.

On the other issues, it is my opinion. Like you have yours.

Just like people have given their opinion on global warming, or this food shortage idea. However my opinion will not cost the US and world trillions of dollars if I am wrong. I am not screaming at the top of my lungs that we have to act right NOW or the world will come crashing down. I am stating we need to work together, gather all the facts and find a good solution if there are really these problems in existance. Do not knee jerk a response. What is wrong about trying to gather the correct data, instead of made up or skewed data?

So, in your opinion, it is better to do something, anything, just to say that something was done? To spend money hoping it is the correct thing to do?

much like the people in the field of scientific research are stating the facts about global warming as they know what will happen?

yet you still write these off as mere opinions or scare tactics. why shouldn't we do the same with your opinion? why is your opinion fact and yet when you do not agree with people in their field it is scare tactics?

that is what i am trying to get across to you ranger. your opinion on any matter is just that no matter how much you try to dress it up and proclaim it loudly as fact. we do not have to accept it as such. the only fact here is that time will tell, whether it be healthcare, global food crises or global warming.

therefore the only opinion i really ever hold is everyone claiming with utter confidence that they know exactly how the future will pan out are either swindlers or fools.

much like the people in the field of scientific research are stating the facts about global warming as they know what will happen?

I would very much trust them if they did not dump data, failed to include data that would disprove their theory, and scheme to exclude contrary points of view. When I see blatant disregard for normal scientific approach to a problem, yes, I call it scare tactics. How can one state facts about the future, when they blatantly disregard the facts in the past that contradict their theory?

However, given the unscientific approach to the problem, I cannot but fail to listen to the so called experts in the field.

What I am trying to get across to you dudemus is that while poople have opinions, doing something just to do something is not always good. And can make a current problem far worse. For someone who advocates getting text and verse on any subject in CB before you will agree something is wrong/broken, you seem to want anything to be done on some social issues.

I would very much trust them if they did not dump data, failed to include data that would disprove their theory, and scheme to exclude contrary points of view. When I see blatant disregard for normal scientific approach to a problem, yes, I call it scare tactics. How can one state facts about the future, when they blatantly disregard the facts in the past that contradict their theory?

oddly enough you pretty much described exactly how i feel about the so-called experts in the medical and health insurance field! now we can finally understand each other.

all i can say to your other point is to reiterate that if the conservative side of politicians wanted more input, they should have tackled this issue. they knew the public wanted change after clinton's first administration. they chose to put their money and energy into wars though.

to be a bit more clear and to make another reference to ayn rand, i think we are at a point where politically it is easier to do nothing and be blamed for that rather than taking a chance on messing something up worse than the status quo.

as a society we have to decide whether we vilify those willing to take a risk even when it doesn't pan out for the best even when doing so will only encourage leaders who choose to do nothing.

if you are so sure that it will turn out bad, it would be perfect for republicans. they didn't vote for it and can claim they were against it the whole way! what more could you ask for as a politician?

all i can say to your other point is to reiterate that if the conservative side of politicians wanted more input, they should have tackled this issue. they knew the public wanted change after clinton's first administration. they chose to put their money and energy into wars though.

So this is payback for the failure of Clinton to pass any health care reform and the inability of the Bush administration to address this issue? Right now the majority of people are quite satisfied with their healthcare plans. While there are issues that need to be addressed, changing the whole system is NOT what the public as a whole wants.

But to pass something so partisan and flawed? Republican have had ideas in this round of health care reform. However ALL of them have gotten dismissed by those in charge. Including the ability for health insurance providers to compete across state lines, malpractice reform and other ideas to promote competition. Not exclude it.

if you are so sure that it will turn out bad, it would be perfect for republicans. they didn't vote for it and can claim they were against it the whole way! what more could you ask for as a politician?

My gosh you have a wrong opinion of me. You must really think of me as an Ogre. I want to stop the progression of things to madness. Once the government gets involved, there is no turning back. Once this fails, and I am confident it will, the government will just throw more and more money at the problem, like they always do.

Just look at Social Security and Medicare now. Both on the road to bankruptcy. But we continue to throw more money at the problem hoping it goes away.

I hope to stop it before we start down this road.

oddly enough you pretty much described exactly how i feel about the so-called experts in the medical and health insurance field! now we can finally understand each other.

I would have hoped, being someone you have known for so long, I would have been someone you could have trusted on this issue. Or at least take as a resource about things.

Not to seem that I am attacking you personally, but from your posts above, you seem to be very angry that nothing has been done so far and are hoping anything different is better.

However, as I stated above, most people are happy with the coverage they have. There are ways to make things even better but the current bill that will get steamrolled through Congress is not the way.

However, as I stated above, most people are happy with the coverage they have.

you state many things though and rarely give any data to back them up. i am a sole proprietor of my own business and for the last two decades i have not been happy with my coverage nor my healthcare at the cost i have had to pay for me and my daughter.

i can only speak for myself though.

i do find it odd that you make the above statement while many polls have shown that most americans support reform. if everyone is so damned happy, why do they support some level of reform?

i do find it odd that you make the above statement while many polls have shown that most americans support reform. if everyone is so damned happy, why do they support some level of reform?

Great question! I personally want some reform to make a great US system even better. With some changes, we can insure more people better and cheaper.

Chiefly:
* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

i would even go so far as to say that america elected the current administration in part due to his campaign promise to reform health care.

I would certainly agree with that statement.

However, they were also transfixed by his statements about doing it in a bipartisan method with transparency.

Something that is 100% lacking in this bill.

And please do not state the Republicans only wanted to stop any bill. They have proposed quite a few amendments that got stuck down on pure party lines. One can certainly type about how this was done to the Democrats in the past and that is true. But this president and how he projected himself was the antithesis of that. And he has become the same highly partisan person as the presidents before him.

As Obama's approval ratings hover between 40-50% does that not show the public does not want this bill? As well as most polls asking that exact question to the public.

And the transparency issue. Even the CEO at CSPAN has taken an issue with it. And I have even seen a statement or 2 about it on the letter networks.

Go to the DakotaVoice one first. In that blog post, it seems they are totally at odds with the CNN poll that they cite in their post. This says that exactly half of Americans are satisfied with their coverage, but they are NOT happy with the costs of their healthcare. A point that the blog post completely rewrites with their own line.

From Dakota Voice:
"And even after all the media-hyped whining about capitalism, costs and an expectation that the government should make everything free, the poll still found 52% satisfied with the cost of health care."

From CNN Poll Article:
"Most Americans like their health care coverage but are not happy with the overall cost of health care, a national poll shows."

Can you please explain this discrepancy to me? What this says to me is that you and others who might think like you are only seeing what you want to see when you look at facts. Please explain to me how you can mentally just skip over the part about 'overall cost of healthcare' in this sentence as quoted from the CNN article.

I am stating what will happen if we pass this health care fiasco. Being in the field I know what will happen. And I try to convince people they are on the wrong path with this current bill.

On the other issues, it is my opinion. Like you have yours.

Ranger:

Being in the field, every computer-related issue that comes up from now on is mine. If you defy my logic on said computer issues, you are wrong. Do not state any view contrary to mine. You must comply. These are your words, not mine, so I am forced to abide by them. You have established the rules. They are not the type of rules I would insist upon, but I've never really understood you, so that's fine.

Your views will be copied and saved. Any time you try to defy a ruling I make on things I know more about than you, you will have to publicly admit that you are wrong and I am right. These views include, but are not limited to:

-- Computers.
-- Physics.
-- Farming.
-- Living in Wisconsin.
-- Divorce. (unless you have experience in that, I haven't heard you do).
-- Karaoke. (I do some mean AC/DC material.)
-- Collecting beer bottles.
-- Drinking beer (see above).
-- Consuming alcohol (see above).
-- Being 5 foot 10, of mainly German decent, and hailing from Iowa (you shouldn't have to worry about this, but if you EVER assume to know what it is like to grow up in Iowa, everything you say can be immediately assumed to be incorrect.)

Like I said, this is all on record. Your rules. What you know, you get to know, and what I know, I get to know. No exceptions.

If you ever wanted to know why I've insisted upon not having a worth discussion, now you know. On the above issues, I am worth more than you, by your own definition. This game will be played to its bitter end, every single chance I get.

Way out if that? Admit you are wrong in stating YOU get do decide medical policy simply because you are a radiologist.

This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002y7O">Food crisis - exageration, tinfoilhattery or real?</a>